The lack of consequences

One of the major weaknesses of FF8 was its treatment of post-Adel Esthar. The seamless transition from monarchy to constitutional democracy; the absence of counter-revolutionaries; the absence of border disputes, considering Esthar's immense geography; and, the invariable economic trends that set the pace for the next 17 years - quite the contrary to its Earthen counterparts.

Clearly, RPG storytelling is enjoyed on the level of fairytales rather than histories; never the less, the story of FF8, both in style and imagery, is more parts Bourke and less parts Grimm. It is after all a struggle between Traditional and Liberal ideologies.

Anyhow, the rest is history ... Laguna, Ragnarok; Squall, the lone wolf.
The story board did manage to convey the message that the representatives of liberalism and ultimately revolution emerge in the latter part of civilisation. The world was created by the great Hyne, who was cast aside by man. Then civilisation was inspired by the Hyne's Children, especially the good sorceresses. By the time of FF8 the world has become rationalistic and thus mankind seeks liberation from their holy authorities.

P.S. If Esthar was France, Germany, Russia, China...the list goes on... Laguna would have been beheaded or exiled (decided by the ravenous libertarian powerbrokers) within 2 years of taking government!

Quote:

---

Something

---

What?

um, well.

there *was* the whole thing that adel was trying to kill them all and laguna was a general hero?

and esthar isn't europe. so yeah. w00t.

I agree that transfer of power was relatively smooth, but we don't know exactly what happened in the 17 years between Adel's entrapment and the Esthar we know now. It couldn't have been completely easy - it obviously was difficult enough that Laguna allowed Ellone ot be shipped off to an orphanage and Esthar cut itself off from the rest of the world in order to get itself together. I'm sure it helped that Adel was generally hated and the Estharian people were grateful to Laguna, but not everything wrapped up neatly - Dr. Odine - for all intents and purposes a mad scientist who worked for the old regime - still has power and performs experiements in the present. So some old evil people hold power.

They could fill a game with the gaps in Laguna's story. Maybe they should.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen plenty of sequels/remakes that try to fill in gaps in the backstory only to create far more problems than they solved. Besides, I have the feeling that we didn't learn anything about it because there wasn't that much to tell. An insane sorceress is using her power to conquer/destroy the world, and a guy stands up and stops him. Ever read The Hobbit? Same thing happened there. The guy who killed Smaug was put into power immediately. That Laguna managed to hold on to his position just shows that he did a good job, so no one wanted to get rid of him.

What we see of Laguna's story consisted mainly of highlights and turning points in his life. But there was presumably a lot that happens between them. I know I'd like to know more.

I think the plot of FFVIII (like many of the FF series) intends to be mythic rather than literal. The whole business of knights and sorceresses is like something straight out of the Authurian legends.

Sleep did me good.
Couldnt you compare Esthar on some levels to the tearing of the Berlin Wall in Germany?

Certainly. In many respects the barrier around Esthar is like the Berlin wall, although the Esthar barrier is is to keep the outside world away, while the Berlin wall was to keep the citizens of East Berlin inside.

In a way the barrier emphasizes self-imposed exile of Esthar as a nation. Until Laguna, it was bent on world domination. Afterwards, it became a more withdrawn and inward-looking society. That left a power vacuum which Galbadia began to fill.

But the barrier is still there are the end of the game. You just have something that can go over it. and you know it's actually there.

The estharians still want their privacy, I'm sure. And the people of F-H were able to leave fairly easily, weren't they?

True which make me wonder, why people of F-H could leave Esthar easily and Laguna didn't. And people also said that Laguna is having a VERY hard time shipping Ellone to the orphanage when F-H people could waltz to F-H without any difficulty. :confused:

"and esthar isn't europe. so yeah."

How very observant. :p
Besides, have you looked at China over the past century, after the dissolution of the Qing dynasty (1911)? Hint: That wasn't Europe either.


"Couldnt you compare Esthar on some levels to the tearing of the Berlin Wall in Germany?"

Most definitely not! The reunification of Germany removed the corruptive influence of communism, and hence brought Germany partially back to a constitutional regime...Note that the Republic formed was still not a monarchy, however. This means that Germany is void of an ephemeral godhead to direct its people. The destruction of the Berlin wall is comparable with FF7's fall of Shinra. That is to say... imposed regimes - communist annexation and business imperialism, correspondingly - were crushed by the loyal defenders of tradition. German's fought for their national pride and the heroes of FF7 rescued their world from extreme Capitalism, ironically through religious re-invigoration (nature and spirit worship were the primordial traditions in FF7, this is most vivid in Red XIII's hometown).

Ok, Removing Adel from Esthar is hypothetically speaking, like removing King Louis XVI from France. Both leaders were tyrannical, indeed. Removing the ancien' regime, however, exposed the people of France to years of suffering for a lesser entity - the state. Today, France is governed by petty politicking, businessmen and to an increasing extent, “Napoleon’s dream” the European Union. These forces are more corrupting to the French identity, both national and spiritual, than even the most heinous monarch. Why? Because, the proponents assert progressivism, capitalism and globalism, respectively. Unlike say, Britain, which maintains its physical godhead through Elizabeth II, France has become a parade of modernity: a culture that values urban living and philosophy, over the simple pleasures of country life and religion.

Anyhow, the main point is that: overthrowing monarchs and progressivism, in general are destructive to the delicate tapestry constructed over millennia that composes any given society. History shows us that all revolutions are violent and the regimes that ensure are less humane that the status quo. So, basically FF8 gives a poor example of revolution and a typically progressivist view of the monarch (sorceress).




Anyhow, cheers. ;)

So you're saying they woulda been better off under Adel?

In reality, yes.

In FF8's reduced format...well apparently not! That is why the thread was called a lack of consequences. ;)

hmm, in reality I don't see that there are many sorceress' around.

It seems she'd be more of a dictator than a royal, though. To me anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besimudo

In reality, yes.

In FF8's reduced format...well apparently not! That is why the thread was called a lack of consequences. ;)

---

So by that logic India was better off under English rule?

FF8 is a pansy sissy game where nothing made sense and little kids were more powerful than barbarians. At least FF7 made *some* sense before the cloning and the gaia ideas.

Um, out of curiousity, what "barbarians" were there in FFVIII that you are comparing to the "little kids"?

(BTW, purposely coming out and criticizing what is a lot of people's favorite game is a good way to get lynched... :D )

"So by that logic India was better off under English rule?"

No, the British rule of India was a degradation from the Moghul empire. The progressive British enslaved a traditional culture with linguistic and economic reforms. This in effect was a rapid change, not unlike revolution, as it totally disrupted the populace.

So, the British transformed an old system: integrating India into a global network that could not be managed well from London - half a world away.

Do not neglect that Ghandi was a traditionalist Hindu - not a progessivist - and lead a passive resistance. Therefore, Ghandi and India cannot be used as an example of 'revolutionary movement' in the same light as previous examples. There is a difference between ousting a natural monarch through violent means (as was the case in France and Russia) to an Imperialist monarch that had very little to do with the people it ruled.




"It seems she'd be more of a dictator than a royal, though."

No, can't agree. Dictators are secular rulers of the state. On the contrary, the sorceress office is ordained by Hyne (god), this stated in the game ... This means that a sorc. is akin to an Empress or monarch. ;)



"FF8 is a pansy sissy game where nothing made sense and little kids were more powerful than barbarians. At least FF7 made *some* sense before the cloning and the gaia ideas."

In one move you have effectively undermined the entire series as all FF games feature 'little kids' more powerful than barbarians (I assume that you mean grown enemies of some description). If you wish to draw sensible conclusions ... why not criticise the fact that a guy with a sword can beat a guy with a gun! But then this is pointless also. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besimudo

If you wish to draw sensible conclusions ... why not criticise the fact that a guy with a sword can beat a guy with a gun! But then this is pointless also. :p

---

A guy with a sword can beat a guy with a gun, depending on the situation. If the guy with the sword is well trained, he can do much more damage much quicker if the two are fighting at close range. True, one gun shot can kill someone, but one stroke from a sword will do a lot more physical damage, as it can cut across the entire body of the opponent. The main advantage of a gun is that: A) It's easy to use, yes, you get better with training, but anyone can blow someone away with a gun (which is why the Colt .45 was nicknamed the "Equalizer") and B) It is a long range weapon. Swords are short range. In close combat, I would much prefer a sword to a gun. Close with a gunman, and you can grab their weapon and render it pretty much useless. Try to do the same thing to a swordman, and you'll wind up missing a few fingers.

Couldn't you say that Adel was a degradation of whatever the crap it was BEFORE she took over?

I assume that there was something before the FHers left.

And the sorceress state is determined by whoever the crap accepts their power. Hyne hasn't shown up ever ingame. Just as a myth.

And she doesn't rule because she's a sorceress. She rules because they're afraid of what she'll do to them because she's a sorceress.

Yeah, and they lock Rinoa away because they're afraid of what she'd do as a sorceress. Which is a big mistake, IMHO. I'd be more worried about what Squall would do in order to get Rinoa back. I mean, if Ward hadn't showed up and let them leave, Squall would've taken out the entire Eshtar army. He's a lot more dangerous than a sorceress.

Sky blade... I am a sword aficionado i.e. I like swords! So you do not need to expound the ad hoc benefits of swordsmanship.

Your argument falls apart, quote:

"Close with a gunman, and you can grab their weapon and render it pretty much useless. "

Firstly, you assume the gunman is of low experience. In most cases where gunmen do battle, it is solider versus solider ... So do not neglect martial art abilities.

Your second assumption is that the swordsman is exceptional. Basically, I could knock a swordsman flat - at close range - before they draw their sword!

"but one stroke from a sword will do a lot more physical damage"

No! killings en masse are possible only with guns. Have you considered the endurance required to even penetrate a human body and make a fatal blow with a sword? After about 5 people your arms would be very tired from the resistance mass of penetration and needless to say the weight of the sword ... a gun user would not experience these draw-backs.

P.S. I raised the sword comment in jest (to make fun of the comment that kids should not be stronger than barbarians). In Barbarian’s mind ... do you really think Squall would have lasted more than a day on his adventure with a sword against the G-army … I couldn’t care less it’s a game after all, but in reality a sword would be of little assistance. Nevertheless, I do not condone this lower critique of games! It's childish.;)


"Couldn't you say that Adel was a degradation of whatever the crap it was BEFORE she took over?"

Yep, just as Henry VIII was worse than his father. I never said that some monarchs were not bad ... just that they are better than politicians and ultimately the tyranny of the masses.


Anyhow, cheers. :)

Final Fantasy has always been lax about their governments. Up until VII every single government was a dictatorship (FFVI) or what appeared to be an absolute monarchy.
In FFVII their didn't seem to be any actual governments. Shinra was pretty much a power company that happened to maintain a rather large private army. It seems they fought Wutai at one time and prevailed, making them the most powerful psuedo-government on the planet. FFVIII wasn't much better. Dollet and Balamb seem to be independent city-states (They are often referred to as countries). Galabadia was a Military dictatorship. Edea seemed to remove deling from office and the people followed her and Seifer blindly. Esthar was ruled by another dictator, Adel. An extremely small group of rebels diposed her with almost no opposition, and even decided to install Laguna as president (he doesn't seem cut out to be a politician, not a good enough liar).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besimudo

Sky blade... I am a sword aficionado i.e. I like swords! So you do not need to expound the ad hoc benefits of swordsmanship.

Your argument falls apart, quote:

"Close with a gunman, and you can grab their weapon and render it pretty much useless. "

Firstly, you assume the gunman is of low experience. In most cases where gunmen do battle, it is solider versus solider ... So do not neglect martial art abilities.

Your second assumption is that the swordsman is exceptional. Basically, I could knock a swordsman flat - at close range - before they draw their sword!

"but one stroke from a sword will do a lot more physical damage"

No! killings en masse are possible only with guns. Have you considered the endurance required to even penetrate a human body and make a fatal blow with a sword? After about 5 people your arms would be very tired from the resistance mass of penetration and needless to say the weight of the sword ... a gun user would not experience these draw-backs.

P.S. I raised the sword comment in jest (to make fun of the comment that kids should not be stronger than barbarians). In Barbarian’s mind ... do you really think Squall would have lasted more than a day on his adventure with a sword against the G-army … I couldn’t care less it’s a game after all, but in reality a sword would be of little assistance. Nevertheless, I do not condone this lower critique of games! It's childish.;)


"Couldn't you say that Adel was a degradation of whatever the crap it was BEFORE she took over?"

Yep, just as Henry VIII was worse than his father. I never said that some monarchs were not bad ... just that they are better than politicians and ultimately the tyranny of the masses.


Anyhow, cheers. :)

---

Well, I was thinking of a one on one battle against a inexperienced opponent. Look at the members of the G-Army. Do you think any of them know how to handle their weapon? :D I was kidding around too.

How do you know what really went on after Laguna asumed power in Esthar? You don't, because the story doesn't explain all of the history behind it. There could have been a power struggle, internal strife, etc. But the game didn't cover that. It's up to your imagination, my friend.

Dollet is a dukedom. It used to be more independant before Galbadia started taking interest in it, I think?

Balamb has been independent for as long as we know.